The Responsibility to “Do Something”

The New York Timeswrite-up of some new poll results makes an unfortunately very common error:

Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak, with majorities across party lines decidedly opposed to American intervention in North Korea or Syria [bold mine-DL] right now as economic concerns continue to dwarf all other issues, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Of course, there’s not really any evidence of “isolationism” in this poll. Overall, the public opposes starting wars in Syria and North Korea. I would be surprised and very worried if that weren’t the case. The only people who would seriously describe this position as “isolationist” are hard-liners and hawkish interventionists that like to describe everything other than their own position as some form of “isolationism” or “neo-isolationism.” Opposition to illegal and unnecessary wars is not a sign of “isolationism.” It means that most Americans have no interest in initiating wars, or at least they aren’t interested in doing so when these wars are not perceived to be important for U.S. security.

The North Korea results show no sign of “isolationism.” 15% of respondents make up a pro-war core out there that thinks military action against North Korea now is a good idea, while 56% believe North Korea can be contained. The worrisome result here is that there appears to be a small constituency for re-starting the Korean War. 21% answered that North Korea is “not a threat at this time” to the U.S. Of course, that’s the wrong question to ask. The issue isn’t whether North Korea is a threat to the U.S., but whether its leaders are reckless and self-destructive enough to attack North Korea’s neighbors. The vast majority of Americans seems to think that they are not.

The Syria results are not as clear as they could be on account of the wording of the question. The question reads, “Do you think the United States has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and anti-government groups, or doesn’t the United States have this responsibility?” The results reflect strong opposition to U.S. involvement in Syria’s conflict, which has been true from the beginning of the uprising two years ago. My guess is that many of the respondents are accustomed to identifying “doing something” with military action. When interventionists demand that the U.S. “act,” this is almost always what they mean, and when they accuse an administration of “inaction” or “passivity” they are complaining that it has not yet taken military action. When asked this question, many respondents probably think they are being asked if the U.S. has a responsibility to take sides in another country’s civil war. A majority naturally answers no to that, because there is no such responsibility. If the same respondents were presented with a series of non-military options ranging from diplomatic efforts to humanitarian relief to sanctions, and they were asked again if the U.S. has a responsibility to do one or all of those things, the results would probably look very different. The public isn’t exhibiting an “isolationist streak.” The New York Times is asking poorly-worded questions.

13 Responses to The Responsibility to “Do Something”

To Washington, intervention is inseparable from committing military forces for some period, definite or indefinite.

Since the New York Times is one of the primary mirrors that lawmakers hold up to themselves, I would rather that it sends the message that military action is per se unpopular, even if the New York Times is incorrect on the underlying point.

My Question: Why is Syria not the Arab league responsibility? The US solutions will be crafted with our interests and understanding of the civil war. Our solution will likely have areas of failure and another Middle Eastern country can scapegoat our country. I would suggest the Arab League take the responsibility here and give them an opportunity to make meaningful changes.

The New York Times is noted for not quite “getting” the citizens of the strange land on the other side of the Hudson River. And it seems have forgotten that non-interventionism is a dominant national trait, as American as apple-goddamn-pie.

I somehow missed that just war doctrine provided for one nation to intervene in another nation’s civil war to maintain its credibility, least of all to avert being labeled ‘isolationist.’
With all the media noise recently about the President’s continued relevancy, and the tub thumping for war coming from the usual discredited sources, I believe we are about to learn something about the President. I hope he is up to it. Libya diminishes my confidence somewhat.

Mr. Larison is correct in his analysis. CBS News and the New York Times released a poll yesterday on opinions regarding Syria. The poll posed a question to 965 adults nationwide worded as such: ”Do you think the United States has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and anti-government groups, or doesn’t the United States have this responsibility?” Answers included “Yes” by 24% of respondents and “No” by 62% of respondents. CBS headlines interpreted the poll as “Americans Against Intervention in Syria.” The New York Times stated, “Americans are exhibiting an isolationist streak, with majorities across party lines decidedly opposed to American intervention in North Korea or Syria, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

While the wording of the poll question on North Korea was acceptable, the question on Syria was ambiguous as recognized by Mr. Larison. The ambiguity stems from use of the word “responsibility” and the phrase “do something”. It would be very possible to think that the US has no responsibility to act in Syria, but should do something nonetheless. It is also possible to think that the U.S. has a responsibility to do something, but that the U.S. should nevertheless do nothing. Finally, “doing something” is ambiguous, and does not necessarily mean “intervention” as asserted in the reporting of the poll by the New York Times. The biases are countervailing, and lead to ambiguity.

That respondents viewed the question as ambiguous is clear when examining the large number of Don’t Know (DK) and No Answer (NA) responses. Tellingly, an aggregated 14% of respondents answered either DK or NA. The mean aggregated DK/NA response for all questions was 5.8% (2.4% standard deviation). This indicates that compared with other better-worded questions, an additional 8.2% of respondents on the Syria question were coded as DK/NA. The Syria DK/NA rate of 14% was well above the key value of 10.5 (two standard deviations from the mean — graph available at http://www.canalyt.com). The question is therefore highly likely to be invalid.

The question should be reworded for future polls as simply, “Should the US intervene militarily to stop the fighting between government forces and anti-government groups in Syria?”

That the American public are sceptical about the merits of getting bogged down in another incredibly expensive military adventure in the Middle East, reflects good instincts rather than “isolationism”.